notatardis

I'd think that's a wee bit high for Cole and Elgin.

I think you make a very valid point, one I've used in terms of discussing music, but at the same time, there's no absolute objective measure. Good and bad are purely subjective, as are the scales we use when deciding. There's no one unanimous scale. Some people think how well you play your instrument is the key talent factor. Other singing voice. Another song writing. The only reason we "know" that King is a good writer is that's what the masses and critics say. Masses also said black people were subhuman, so I'm not a fan of mob rule, but I digress. We could look at his story mapping, his usage of language, so many other things. Same with the wrestlers. I look at the stat as how well he executes brawling type moves, and how many of them he has. He's got almost none these days, though the execution is fine. That warrants a low 70s in my book. You see it as something different. I don't think either method is inherently better than the rest, but yes, I'd argue the fact his moves are almost non existent these days (not that he had many to begin with, but he used to move much better in general, again, I digress) and that he's such a Larry Zbyszko, his over (people's knowledge of/reaction to him) and his charisma and selling (which I throw psychology under) help carry his matches, which are mostly laying around spot fests. But it's fine we disagree, I think both viewpoints, as I said are equally valid. The issue comes with you saying, if I read it right, "The compromise should be the absolute lowest I feel is acceptable". The problem is, this isn't about just you. You have a wide array of people saying 81 is insane for him. Their input is just as valid as yours, and not weighted, that averages out to a 71. Your opinion is not any more special than nay other poster's. Now, if you;'re saying, "okay, I give a little, I can reasonably state that 81 is okay enough, now you guys come up to the highest you think he can be, and we'll go from there", that's fine and I apologize, but it hasn't read that way. As the music forum's tagline goes "Some people like Paul McCartney, but there are over 100 musical acts preferred by EWB." This is the subset of people we have voicing opinions, just like on a board of teenage girls, Stephen King would get a low rating from them. It is what it is, what we have to work with. It's a pretty democratic process thanks to Bill, and sometimes things don't break the way we would like them to, it happens. I hope that made sense and didn't come off too douchey, I was just trying to strongly explain my point and why I'm a bit exasperated.

And that would be where us lower stat guys are coming from.

Then everyone is clearly just going to vote load, and in the end, what will happen will work out in favour of the people who think he deserves lower, simply because 86 is closer to 100 than 0 and there's enough on the other side. If everyone here is that petulant, I'll gladly go back to just reading the Doctor Who/TV threads since I barely have time to play the game as is. I think Taker's matches now are boring as shit, and belongs nowhere near an 81. Others disagree, that's fine. There's room for honest discussion. BTW, I'm not singling you out, I've just noticed in the past some members here can be rather immature and act like a bunch of teenagers, and things can snowball for the worse rather quickly.

It does when what the outcome was didn't represent the overall opinion. More people argued for a brawl in the 80s than one in the 70s or lower. It was exactly even last I recall. It was pretty much split down the middle, and a couple of people were calling for his numbers in the 60s so Bill compromised. The majority of people called for it in the mid 80s. One person called for it in the sixties. A better compromise would be 81 IMO. Here's what was in the July thread: I said low 70s. You have 86. Mister Potato Head said 61 Lineker agreed with MPH. jupiterhill said 78-81 Owned by Quickquid said 61 was a decent compromise Conker had him at 86 Mancuerda has him mid upper 80s 720 didn't state specifically, but indicated that 86 was way too high. I know he's not here anymore, but he had a very informed opinion, and I think including as many good eyes as possible is a good idea. I'm not going through the posts again for selling, but it was mostly the same. So you have a 70s, 61, 61, 61, 86, 86, 86, and 80 not including Red. That averages to about the low 70's, and doesn't include a 61 as a compromise. And that's 5 for lower and 4 for higher, drop Red it's even. I'm not sure if it's just the way you recall things or do it on purpose pulling a Fox News since it's popped up in other arguments, but the data's there, and you're flat wrong on this one. Feel free to double check my work.

It does when what the outcome was didn't represent the overall opinion. More people argued for a brawl in the 80s than one in the 70s or lower. It was exactly even last I recall. It was pretty much split down the middle, and a couple of people were calling for his numbers in the 60s so Bill compromised.

We just had the Taker argument within the last few months. It makes no sense to work out something, then start banging at it to be changed again.

Wait, what? Isn't this the exact same argument I made for other guys?

And here is the Problem. You say "Overness" means how many People knows Heat Slater. I say Overness ist how People reacts to a Wrestler. And you say Overness does not mean a wrestler "sold tickets"? For me this is a big factor in the Overness Value. How many "casual" fans know the WWE Guys that are used almost only for superstars and live events? Not as many as you might think! WWE has more audience no doubt. That does not mean that the casual fans know the worker from the Undercard Yeah...Richards could Main Event a cult promotion with 67. But Slater wouldn't headline any show for ROH. Slater wouldn't headline any Show in Japan. He would be just a guy known from WWE. And the game says fuck your definition of overness. As already explained the game determines overness by how well known the worker is. It is ludicrous to argue that a guy who has never been on national tv in any prominent role is as over or more over (which the game determines as who is more well-known) than someone who is on televisions world wide. Remember, Raw is broadcast on stations in many countries, not just America. You don't get it. A lot of the WWE Guys in the Undercard you never see at RAW or SmackDown. Bateman, Curtis, JTG, Reks, Hawkins, Beretta, Riley, Camacho, Hunico, McIntyre, Jackson, Usos, Mahal, Gabriel, Ryan, McGillicutty, Tatsu and, besides the Legend-Angle, Heath Slater....all these guys are mostly used only for Superstars and NXT. NXT and Superstars runs on the Internet not on national tv. In many Countries you can't see these shows at all. In many countries you can not even see the complete RAW and Smackdown Shows. And if these guys are sometimes used on Smackdown or RAW then as jobbers. (And guess what ... you can see the ROH Weekly free on the ROH website worldwide! And hey...you can't see Superstars (legally) worldwide on the Internet) So you argue that these people are known worldwide even though they are NOT on worldwide television...although they're not even on national TV? Just because they are on wwe.com roster page? And what says the Game really about overness? So if you want the game more realistic then lower also the overness of the WWE and TNA Under Carder Good thing you edited what you originally said since your reading comprehension would be seen as suspect at best. You pointed out one small part of the whole thing, one that I originally posted. Read right after that. And then the sentence after that. It's clear it's basing it on a large crowd. Again the game works on one scale, that scale being set to the WWE. We know that some guys in the E would get less reactions than some guys in the indies if they are both in the indies, and that the reactions would be reversed if they were both in the E. We can't account for that, there's no ability to parse overness for what a wrestler would be at different companies. Therefore, following the game's mechanics, we work off of that one scale, which is set to the E. It's unfortunate all we have is a linear scale, but that's what it is. You want to argue some of the lower carders are perhaps well known, that's fine. I can see it. But in the case of specifically Heath Slater and Ryback, who I started my comparison with, it's not so.

It depends, where do you see more talk about it? Overall in the wrestling world I'd give a slight edge to PWG as far as brand awareness goes, as well as overall attendance figures. Where do you hear the buzz on PWG anymore? In 2005, there was a lot and through I would say 2008/9 there were still talked about but now, it is mainly when they have angles. The last time I really hear of PWG on wrestling news sites is through the Kurt RussleMania shows which are bigger due to the reunion it is a part of. I think SHIMMER is actually a larger promotion in name value than PWG is at this point. A majority of the main PWG talent have left for WWE, TNA or even retired in the case of Human Tornado, Scott Lost and Chris Bosh The fact is, SHIMMER itself currently draws 200 people at their home location but I think they can draw more than 400 people if they moved to a larger venue, they are a very known as people from all over the world travel to see the shows and could very well run more than 200 people. The brand is one of the better and known in wrestling. I would put it as the highest women's promotion and possibly 5th/6th overall. That last part is completely speculation. As for PWG, I hear about them a lot on various wrestling forums. Are they having the same buzz as a few years back? No, but I'd still say a bit more than Shimmer is, not to mention, regardless of building size or anything like that, they are in fact drawing more fans. Would Shimmer draw more if they moved to a bigger building? Maybe. But maybe they'd draw the exact same amount, too. Following this, I have these suggestions: Raise Eddie Edwards overness to 68 Lower Homicide's overness to 70 Lower Jay Briscoe's overness to 69 Lower Jay Lethal's overness to 70 Lower Kevin Steen's overness to 70 Lower Mark Briscoe's overness to 69 Lower Roderick Strong's overness to 67 Agree with all except Homicide's. He has a lot of fame from his work in TNA, I would put him at 73. Works for me, I was on the fence about him. With Shimmer and PWG, I think maybe they are pretty much at the exact same level, just different appeal if that make sense. Different but equal.

Add Mike Sydal to ROH with his current info listed in the first slot, open contract.

To be fair, it's more about the future mechanics of the game than the overness itself. That'll go a long way for stability in the future. Also, I didn't have enough time last month to really work with the overness bit, but as I said in whatever post, I thought everyone was getting a -5 off their overness. With that not the case, I can toss out some numbers now, and just did.

Following this, I have these suggestions: Raise Eddie Edwards overness to 68 Lower Homicide's overness to 70 Lower Jay Briscoe's overness to 69 Lower Jay Lethal's overness to 70 Lower Kevin Steen's overness to 70 Lower Mark Briscoe's overness to 69 Lower Roderick Strong's overness to 67

Doesn't matter to me... Currently, I have Resistance Pro's roster ready to go in as well, just need suggestions on the promotion info (Size, Image, Risk, etc). One thing I will say is that I want to get all of the promotions in the game adjusted into an agreeable order before I add or remove any promotions... That's one reason I'm trying to get feedback on how I slotted the Cult promotions... So far, you're the only one to respond with an opinion. Normally, I'm up later into the evening, but probably won't be up much longer tonight, so hopefully more opinions on the matter will come in overnight. Based on the opinions I get, I'll adjust the Cult list and see if we can come to an agreement there, so we can move onto the Regional promotions. -Bill For what it's worth, I haven't chimed in because I agree. It's pretty much spot on with what I was espousing last month.

Upon thinking it over, NWA-F1 hasn't run in 4+ months. WXW C4 runs 2-3 times a month. I think they would be a great replacement, given that they are about the same size as F1. I will be providing stats for all of the workers as well as the company so it is ready for next month's release, if Bill is interested in swapping it out for NWA F1. Davey I agree with, but ROH, I dunno. A few months ago I'd agree, but people are leaving in droves, and they keep getting hit with pretty bad PR. As I said, I think they have peaked and are starting to slide.